What Sarah Knows
Sarah Palin has gotten some rough treatment from the media since John McCain announced his vice presidential pick. In her speech last week, she gave a little jab back at "all those reporters and commentators." That won't likely win her many new admirers in the Washington press corps. But Rasmussen has a new poll out that suggests that piling on Mrs. Palin may do more to harm the media's own image than hers.

According to Rasmussen, fully 68% of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." And -- no surprise -- 49% of those surveyed believe reporters are backing Barack Obama, while just 14% think the media is in the tank for Sen. McCain.

Meanwhile, 51% of those surveyed thought the press was "trying to hurt" Mrs. Palin with its coverage.

Perhaps most troubling for the press corps, though, was this finding: "55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations."
Wow. Politicians like to rail about the nefarious influence of money on politics (and John McCain is a champion in this regard), a stance that always elicits applause from reporters. Ask the public, though, and a bigger problem is the media's own influence. Mrs. Palin, it seems, was on firm political footing when she thumbed her nose at "all those

the action that pro-choice people take is to fight for abortion to remain legal while supporting comprehensive sex education, fully funded birth control, and the overall advancement and education of women because the more educated women are the more in control of when and how they get pregnant they tend to be. action is also taken by parents who tell their daughters that they are worth more than the status of their virginity, that sex isn't shameful but entirely natural and something that must be approached with caution, knowledge and protection.

You forgot about the right.

They have promise rings, virginity pledges (anal is OK?), the Church says condoms are the devil, and all life is sacred until it's born to a mother in Harlem, then it becomes a welfare problem.

I really wish I were kidding, but I'm not. The reality of the matter is that if you look at the actions of the left and the right in this matter, the right has been almost completely negligent and has stifled any sort of educational progress in the name of religion. It isn't secularists who oppose the birth control pill, the morning after pill, condoms and other forms of contraception. It isn't secularists who have a problem with providing free condoms to teenagers. It isn't secularists who think that abstinence only works or who pushed Bush into funding only abstinence-only programs abroad, hey that's sure going to work wonders in those high HIV infection areas. There may be a lot of issues where both sides are equally responsible for the current state of affairs. But when it comes to contraception and comprehensive sex ed, it's all on the right. They are responsible for the failure we find ourselves in.

(Now that is to say nothing of certain men and women out there who are inherently irresponsible and don't give a shit. They most certainly exist and their actions are theirs alone.)

I worked with a girl who got married at 20 because "you know how it is" - and I had to say that no, I really didn't.

Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!

Posts: 947

Local Time: 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Well there are many education bills that come to the desk of the president, but I'm sure you are aware of that...

Also, if we have a VP potential President that holds these beliefs it brings a certain legitimacy to this type of backwards thinking...

And would that bill get through congress?

I dont think saying backwards thinking is fair. She has an opinion and there are many Americans, like it or not, that have the same beliefs. You many not agree but by saying that it is backwards thinking, you are saying your position is absolutely right. I'm not say that is it or is is not. It is just an opinion. Others may argue that that YOUR position is backwards thinking. They are not more correct than you.

I think this is part of the problem. A lack of respect on both sides. There can never be compromise if you cannot acknowledge and respect the other side.

Where is the give and take? Would the left be willing to give up late term abortions? Partial Birth abortions? Would they compromise for the right supporting education programs and birth control. Not that it would happen but just asking....what is the Pro-choice willing to give to try to meet somewhere in the middle?

I dont think saying backwards thinking is fair. She has an opinion and there are many Americans, like it or not, that have the same beliefs. You many not agree but by saying that it is backwards thinking, you are saying your position is absolutely right. I'm not say that is it or is is not. It is just an opinion. Others may argue that that YOUR position is backwards thinking. They are not more correct than you.

I think this is part of the problem. A lack of respect on both sides. There can never be compromise if you cannot acknowledge and respect the other side.

Would it pass? If we keep electing politicians like Palin, then yes...

It is backwards, I stand by that. There are a lot of opinions in life that I may not agree with but I respect and am willing to compromise, but this is not one. It's been proven wrong time and time again and not only that, it's a belief that purposely bans certain thought, there's nothing American about banning...

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.

The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include:

...(c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President;

Bylaws, Article 2, Section 7

...(c) Special meetings of the National Committee may be held upon the call of the Chairperson with the approval of the Executive Committee with reasonable notice to the members, and no action may be taken at such a special meeting unless such proposed action was included in the notice of the special meeting. The foregoing notwithstanding, a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson, who shall set the date for such meeting in accordance with the procedural rules provided for in Article Two, Section 8(d) of these Bylaws.

So basically, either way it's up to the national committee of the party in question to appoint a replacement. They wouldn't have to 'promote' the VP candidate to Presidential candidate if they didn't want to.

As for postponing elections, the constitutional authority to do that rests with Congress, so that'd be up to them to decide.

Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!

Posts: 947

Local Time: 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Would it pass? If we keep electing politicians like Palin, then yes...

It is backwards, I stand by that. There are a lot of opinions in life that I may not agree with but I respect and am willing to compromise, but this is not one. It's been proven wrong time and time again and not only that, it's a belief that purposely bans certain thought, there's nothing American about banning...

I respectfully disagree. I may not agree with it but I still respect the people who hold to that belief. My opinion is the absolute right for only one person in America..me. I cannot discredit anyone else just because I dont agree.

Also, she was not just about teaching abstinence. It is another of the things about Palin that has been misrepresented. She was for teaching both sides. Her daughter received both too.

Nothing American about banning.? What about banning DDT? Banning Child Porn? Asbestoses?

so, at the very least, you are admitting to the fact that she is a purely political pick and her pick had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to run the country in the event McCain becomes incapable of performing his duties?

in essence, she is a gimmick.

Saying that one is the best candidate for VP to help the ticket win in November in no way implies that its a "gimmick". This form of criticism is funny considering who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.

I am glad I'm not him because I think all of his choices were terrible.

And I don't think that Palin is a magic bullet among women that they are hoping she is. Will she pick up some women? Sure. Enough women to make a tangible difference given how far behind he is with that voting bloc? No.

If Palin didn't have extreme views on birth control, abortion (even in cases of rape & incest) and creationism, she'd pick up way more women because she is not inherently unlikeable. But these are really really bad positions to have when you are seeking MODERATES. How many moderates do you know who believe we shouldn't have the birth control pill available and that their daughters should give birth to rapists' babies? Palin is way right on these issues.

Well, Ronald Reagan got 56% of the female vote despite having many of the same positions that Sarah Palin has on those issues.

It remains to be seen how much pull Sarah Palin will have, but already things are looking good for McCain. A new USA TODAY/GALLUP poll of "likely Voters" has McCain 10 points ahead of Obama. You have to admit, this has been a very good week for John McCain.

the action that pro-choice people take is to fight for abortion to remain legal while supporting comprehensive sex education, fully funded birth control, and the overall advancement and education of women because the more educated women are the more in control of when and how they get pregnant they tend to be. action is also taken by parents who tell their daughters that they are worth more than the status of their virginity, that sex isn't shameful but entirely natural and something that must be approached with caution, knowledge and protection.

so it's a multi-pronged thing.

at the bottom line, every pro-choice person wants each pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy. many pro-choice people view each and every abortion as a failure, or even a tragedy. but they believe that a woman must be able to control when she does and does not get pregnant.

I had to leave to do something so I couldn't respond, but I see Irvine was as insightful and eloquent as ever in my absence.

Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!

Posts: 947

Local Time: 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Do you happen to have a source?

Yes. An LA Times article quoting Sarah Palin during a gubernatorial debate.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

Seems that she is not as backwards as you thought

How does one effectively teach about condom use without doing it explicitly? Think about it...kids are rank beginners in the having sex department (hopefully they are anyway). Telling them to use condoms without telling them exactly how isn't going to do a hell of a lot of good. Telling them to practice safe sex doesn't do much good if they don't know exactly what that entails. If we don't want kids having babies (or having abortions) or getting STDs we have to get over being squeamish about sex and learn to teach them openly and even bluntly about (pardon the pun) all the ins and outs of sex.

Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!

Posts: 947

Local Time: 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indra

How does one effectively teach about condom use without doing it explicitly? Think about it...kids are rank beginners in the having sex department (hopefully they are anyway). Telling them to use condoms without telling them exactly how isn't a hell of a lot of good. Telling them to practice safe sex doesn't do much good if they don't know exactly what that entails. If we don't want kids having babies or getting STDs we have to get over being squeamish about sex and learn to teach them openly and even bluntly about (pardon the pun) all the ins and outs of sex.

You dont even know what she is defining as "explicit" but you seem to be instantly jumping to a negative conclusion? From what I have read on here, it seems everyone believed that she was ONLY in favor of abstinence programs. That was proven wrong. Is everything with her is guilty until proven innocent? It will be interesting to see if the masses of America treat her the same way and jump to negative conclusions or if they have an open mind and seek the truth.

If she really is a bad person, it will show itself. I have seen it before in people. The bad decisions, lies and such cannot be hidden. The truth comes out for those who are willing to seek it and not buy in to excuses.